Is Scottish independence a 'good or bad' thing? Watch

Poll: Should Scotland be an independent country?
YES (299)
32.12%
NO (632)
67.88%
This discussion is closed.
Choo.choo
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#4841
Report 5 years ago
#4841
(Original post by L i b)
I'm sorry, but that's utter nonsense.

The Scottish Government's spending is set by the UK Government. It is given a block grant. That the Scottish Government chooses to spend this in certain ways is irrelevant to the overall quantum of spending.

As for the NHS - I think you've managed to find a rather poor one to go on there. The UK Government is increasing NHS spending above inflation projections for every year of this parliament. Spending is going up. This resorts in Barnett consequentials, giving even more money to the Scottish Government - which they had to be shamed into spending on health.
Yes, the Scottish Government gets a block grant from the UK Government (hence Independence for full fiscal autonomy), but it is the Scottish Government that decides what it spends that money on.
0
Choo.choo
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#4842
Report 5 years ago
#4842
(Original post by L i b)
It's got nothing to do with "work", it's residency based alone. It will also apply to everyone resident in any other EU country - aside, it seems, from England, Wales and Northern Ireland. That's why it's discriminatory. Absurdly so, in fact.
As I said, people who "live and work" in Scotland are getting it free. Those who don't have to pay. Why should we hand out free tuition fees to people who don't live and work here?
0
cowsforsale
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#4843
Report 5 years ago
#4843
(Original post by Good bloke)
Your whole argument is based on being indignant that a central government should want to bring spending (higher under the Barnett formula in Scotland for entirely political reasons) into line with that in England. How does this square with Scotland being the poor relation? And with Scotland currently having a bad deal?
"From GERS we know that in 2010-11 the total budget attributed to Scotland by Westminster (ie both the Scottish block grant and the money spent by London “on Scotland’s behalf”) was just under £64 billion, including all debt repayment and other costs. The total tax revenue raised in Scotland over the same period when a geographical share of North Sea revenue is included was £53 billion, which left Scotland with an estimated net fiscal balance deficit of £10.7 billion (or 7.4% of GDP).

In 2010-11, the equivalent UK position including 100 per cent of North Sea revenue was a deficit of £136 billion (or 9.2% of GDP). This means that Scotland pays for itself better than the UK as a whole.

But it has an extra burden to carry too. Scotland was allocated a share of that UK deficit, which was added to the nation’s debt balance, on a per-capita basis rather than being related to Scotland’s own finances. The per-capita share amounted to £11.4 billion, whereas as we’ve seen the actual Scottish deficit was £10.7 billion. In other words, £730 million that was not spent by or on Scotland has been added to our share of the UK’s crippling debt, in just one year.

This is an invisible annual subsidy by Scotland to the rest of the UK. It’s a bit like going out to lunch with your friend and getting a £9 main course, while your friend gets one that costs £11. When the bill comes your friend insists you split the bill at £10 each, thereby charging YOU £1 for the meal THEY ate." - Link

"Scotland paid £27bn more than was received in public spending, they suggest that the actual figure was nearer to £31bn" - Link

This is also a good read. Notice how everything is kept on the hush hush?? Scotland could have been as prosperous as Switzerland
0
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4844
Report 5 years ago
#4844
(Original post by Choo.choo)
As I said, people who "live and work" in Scotland are getting it free. Those who don't have to pay. Why should we hand out free tuition fees to people who don't live and work here?
Er, we do, that's EU law. And as for your "live and work" thing, that is factually wrong - it has nothing to do with working status.

What the Scottish Government wants to do is uniquely discriminate against students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Our closest neighbours. A Bulgarian or Maltese student would be entitled to free tuition in Scotland, not not one from across the North Channel in Larne.

(Original post by Choo.choo)
Yes, the Scottish Government gets a block grant from the UK Government (hence Independence for full fiscal autonomy), but it is the Scottish Government that decides what it spends that money on.
So you now admit you were wrong to suggest the level of public spending had anything whatsoever to do with the Scottish Government?
0
Choo.choo
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#4845
Report 5 years ago
#4845
(Original post by cowsforsale)
"From GERS we know that in 2010-11 the total budget attributed to Scotland by Westminster (ie both the Scottish block grant and the money spent by London “on Scotland’s behalf”) was just under £64 billion, including all debt repayment and other costs. The total tax revenue raised in Scotland over the same period when a geographical share of North Sea revenue is included was £53 billion, which left Scotland with an estimated net fiscal balance deficit of £10.7 billion (or 7.4% of GDP).

In 2010-11, the equivalent UK position including 100 per cent of North Sea revenue was a deficit of £136 billion (or 9.2% of GDP). This means that Scotland pays for itself better than the UK as a whole.

But it has an extra burden to carry too. Scotland was allocated a share of that UK deficit, which was added to the nation’s debt balance, on a per-capita basis rather than being related to Scotland’s own finances. The per-capita share amounted to £11.4 billion, whereas as we’ve seen the actual Scottish deficit was £10.7 billion. In other words, £730 million that was not spent by or on Scotland has been added to our share of the UK’s crippling debt, in just one year.

This is an invisible annual subsidy by Scotland to the rest of the UK. It’s a bit like going out to lunch with your friend and getting a £9 main course, while your friend gets one that costs £11. When the bill comes your friend insists you split the bill at £10 each, thereby charging YOU £1 for the meal THEY ate." - Link

"Scotland paid £27bn more than was received in public spending, they suggest that the actual figure was nearer to £31bn" - Link

This is also a good read. Notice how everything is kept on the hush hush?? Scotland could have been as prosperous as Switzerland
I agree 100% with this.
0
Choo.choo
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#4846
Report 5 years ago
#4846
(Original post by L i b)
Er, we do, that's EU law. And as for your "live and work" thing, that is factually wrong - it has nothing to do with working status.

What the Scottish Government wants to do is uniquely discriminate against students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Our closest neighbours. A Bulgarian or Maltese student would be entitled to free tuition in Scotland, not not one from across the North Channel in Larne.
Why should they get free tuition fees? They don't live and work here. For example, if I went to study elsewhere but Scotland, where I live and work, I would expect to have to pay for that tuition from my own pocket. Students have to follow the way the system works. Just like when you, for example, apply for a job. You have to accept that you don't always get your own way. You have a pariochial attitude. Unfortunately in this world, we have to accept the realities of the way things are, and this is one of them. I am sorry if that does not work for you, but that is my position, and I stand by it, just like you stand by your position.

(Original post by L i b)
So you now admit you were wrong to suggest the level of public spending had anything whatsoever to do with the Scottish Government?
I don't follow your point here.
0
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4847
Report 5 years ago
#4847
(Original post by cowsforsale)
In 2010-11, the equivalent UK position including 100 per cent of North Sea revenue was a deficit of £136 billion (or 9.2% of GDP). This means that Scotland pays for itself better than the UK as a whole.
So in other words, the UK Government spends £7 billion more on Scotland than it raises in tax, and you're complaining about it?

But it has an extra burden to carry too. Scotland was allocated a share of that UK deficit
By whom? Where?

This is an invisible annual subsidy by Scotland to the rest of the UK.
No it's not. It's getting £7bn extra sent up here from London. It's getting £1,600 spend on every person in Scotland more than what they get in England.


It’s a bit like going out to lunch with your friend and getting a £9 main course, while your friend gets one that costs £11. When the bill comes your friend insists you split the bill at £10 each, thereby charging YOU £1 for the meal THEY ate."
No it isn't. (On an off-topic note, who would be cheap enough not to split such a bill down the middle?)

Plus, I remind you, the whole point of taxation is to be broadly redistributive. It doesn't matter how much revenue Scotland brings in - that should be utterly irrelevant to how much it gets in public spending.

This is also a good read. Notice how everything is kept on the hush hush?? Scotland could have been as prosperous as Switzerland
It's a lot of crap. Every single estimate and statistic on North Sea oil yields were in the public domain. In point of fact, in 1975 these public figures were actually overly optimistic - actual yields were lower. Nothing was remotely "hush hush".
0
Choo.choo
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#4848
Report 5 years ago
#4848
(Original post by L i b)
So in other words, the UK Government spends £7 billion more on Scotland than it raises in tax, and you're complaining about it?
The point is that the deficit is far, far lower than the current deficit of the Westminster Government. £7billion is enormously lower than £121billion (or thereabouts).
0
cowsforsale
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#4849
Report 5 years ago
#4849
(Original post by Midlander)
What do you think of the SNP proposal to discriminate against RUK students in an independent Scotland in defiance of EU law?
In defiance of EU law?

"Would charging students from the rest of the UK tuition
fees in an independent Scotland be compatible with EU
law?

We believe that the unique and unprecedented position of a
post-independent Scotland will enable us to continue our
current policy in a way which is consistent with the principles
of free movement across the EU as a whole and which is
compatible with EU requirements."
Note "we believe" (in other words, their interpretations of the law). They could probably have gotten a definite answer had the rUK bothered to get advice from Brussels directly - which Scotland can't.

"Will students from parts of the EU other than the rest
of the UK pay tuition fees?

Students from other parts of the EU have the same right
of access to education as home students. This means EU
applicants are considered for entry on the same academic basis
as home students and pay the same. This will remain the case
with independence. "
What's to stop the government from charging everyone but offering bursary to Scottish residents?

Anyway, all of this stuff is pure waffle. The topic is all about the referendum afterall, not about what SNP will or will not apply if they are in power.

Also, the Scottish Tories have three times as many MSPs as the Lib Dems. I thought Scotland was full of socially aware Good Samaritans and all the evil Tories lived 'doon sooth'?
:rolleyes: I'm just as confused. I thought all of us kilt-wearing, haggis-eating, Anglophobic thugs would all vote SNP.

By the way, if you do go to Sturgeon's talk, please take a camera with you. It'd be a shame if all of that Anglophobic abuse goes amiss. :rolleyes:
0
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4850
Report 5 years ago
#4850
(Original post by Choo.choo)
Why should they get free tuition fees? They don't live and work here. For example, if I went to study elsewhere but Scotland, where I live and work, I would expect to have to pay for that tuition from my own pocket. Students have to follow the way the system works. Just like when you, for example, apply for a job. You have to accept that you don't always get your own way. You have a pariochial attitude. Unfortunately in this world, we have to accept the realities of the way things are, and this is one of them. I am sorry if that does not work for you, but that is my position, and I stand by it, just like you stand by your position.
That's because of EU law. Ask the Scottish Government why they want to apply that.

If you support the position of the Scottish Government, I am arguing that you are discriminating against people from England, Wales and Northern Ireland. If you apply for a job, you don't get discriminated against on the basis of nationality.

I don't follow your point here.
You said "Spending is higher north of the border because of protection of the NHS and so on from devolved powers in the Scottish parliament". When I pointed out that was entirely wrong, you quite properly contradicted it by acknowledging that spending levels in Scotland are set by the UK Government and have nothing to do with the Scottish Government.

I assume you now recognise your original assertion was entirely false?
0
Choo.choo
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#4851
Report 5 years ago
#4851
(Original post by L i b)
That's because of EU law. Ask the Scottish Government why they want to apply that.

If you support the position of the Scottish Government, I am arguing that you are discriminating against people from England, Wales and Northern Ireland. If you apply for a job, you don't get discriminated against on the basis of nationality.



You said "Spending is higher north of the border because of protection of the NHS and so on from devolved powers in the Scottish parliament". When I pointed out that was entirely wrong, you quite properly contradicted it by acknowledging that spending levels in Scotland are set by the UK Government and have nothing to do with the Scottish Government.

I assume you now recognise your original assertion was entirely false?
One more time. The UK Government give the Scottish Parliament a block grant. The Scottish Parliament then makes decisions on how that money is spent. It is not rocket science.
0
cowsforsale
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#4852
Report 5 years ago
#4852
"Convergence uplift payments are designed to level the playing field between EU member states by benefiting those parts of Europe with the lowest per hectare payment rates.

However, Defra decided to withhold the full fund from Scotland and share it pro rata across the four nations of the UK. This is despite the fact the UK only qualified for the support fund because of Scotland’s low per hectare payment rates. "

Better Together?
0
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4853
Report 5 years ago
#4853
(Original post by cowsforsale)
Note "we believe" (in other words, their interpretations of the law). They could probably have gotten a definite answer had the rUK bothered to get advice from Brussels directly - which Scotland can't.
The European Commission has already clearly stated its position many times and through many officials, from the President of the Commission downwards, on issues pertaining to Scottish independence. The Scottish Government rejects their view, preferring to make stuff up.

What's to stop the government from charging everyone but offering bursary to Scottish residents?

Anyway, all of this stuff is pure waffle. The topic is all about the referendum afterall, not about what SNP will or will not apply if they are in power.
That's exactly what it's about. People have legitimate reasons to question why people want Scottish independence and what a separate Scotland would look like.

As for your question - it quite obviously falls into the exact same legal situation. You cannot discriminate against citizens from other EU countries.
0
Choo.choo
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#4854
Report 5 years ago
#4854
(Original post by L i b)
That's because of EU law. Ask the Scottish Government why they want to apply that.

If you support the position of the Scottish Government, I am arguing that you are discriminating against people from England, Wales and Northern Ireland. If you apply for a job, you don't get discriminated against on the basis of nationality.
It is true that employers don't discriminate on nationality, but you, as a student, or any other student, has to accept the reality of the way the system works. Take the Scottish Government to court, if you disagree with that decision. I do not know the viewpoint of other Scottish parties on tuition fees. If the SNP lose the 2016 election, the party that wins might not offer free tuition fees to anyone. It is something that the SNP believe to be important, i.e. education.
0
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4855
Report 5 years ago
#4855
(Original post by Choo.choo)
The point is that the deficit is far, far lower than the current deficit of the Westminster Government. £7billion is enormously lower than £121billion (or thereabouts).
Believe it or not, but Scotland only has a fraction of the population of the UK...
0
Choo.choo
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#4856
Report 5 years ago
#4856
(Original post by L i b)
You cannot discriminate against citizens from other EU countries.
Yes you can.
0
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4857
Report 5 years ago
#4857
(Original post by Choo.choo)
One more time. The UK Government give the Scottish Parliament a block grant. The Scottish Parliament then makes decisions on how that money is spent. It is not rocket science.
No, it isn't. So you presumably then admit that your assertion that I've now quoted back at you several times was, in fact, entirely wrong?

Because it was. I know it. Virtually everyone else here knows it. We're just waiting to see how long it takes for you to acknowledge when you say something which is completely inaccurate and misleading. It's already been quite a while...
0
Choo.choo
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#4858
Report 5 years ago
#4858
(Original post by L i b)
Believe it or not, but Scotland only has a fraction of the population of the UK...
I should add that it will take less time to pay down a deficit of £7billion, than a deficit of £121 billion. The power of independence lies in being able to make decisions to grow the economy, in other words, plugging holes in over spending.
0
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4859
Report 5 years ago
#4859
(Original post by cowsforsale)
"Convergence uplift payments are designed to level the playing field between EU member states by benefiting those parts of Europe with the lowest per hectare payment rates.

However, Defra decided to withhold the full fund from Scotland and share it pro rata across the four nations of the UK. This is despite the fact the UK only qualified for the support fund because of Scotland’s low per hectare payment rates. "

Better Together?
Really? Will we be getting complaints about the price of stamps next?

Why are we even subsidising farmers in the first place?

(Original post by Choo.choo)
Yes you can.
That is EU law. If you don't agree with it, you can't be in the EU.
0
Choo.choo
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#4860
Report 5 years ago
#4860
(Original post by L i b)
No, it isn't. So you presumably then admit that your assertion that I've now quoted back at you several times was, in fact, entirely wrong?

Because it was. I know it. Virtually everyone else here knows it. We're just waiting to see how long it takes for you to acknowledge when you say something which is completely inaccurate and misleading. It's already been quite a while...
Why is that such a difficult concept to grasp? The Barnett formula is used to calculate Scotland's budget for spending. The Scottish Government make decisions on how to spend the block grant they get from Westminster.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you made up your mind on your five uni choices?

Yes I know where I'm applying (58)
66.67%
No I haven't decided yet (19)
21.84%
Yes but I might change my mind (10)
11.49%

Watched Threads

View All